Petunia846

I thought it worked well. Was it longer than 60 minutes? It felt like a lot of stuff was crammed in there. Is that how the Otter Tooth story goes in the book or was tying that into Roger's rescue a show-only thing? I thought it worked well, except you just had to hope that these people who were ardent followers of a man from the future who told them they needed to kill all the white people before it was too late didn't take his advice when it came to these particular white people. Claire's like, "We'll help you!" And the other woman should have been like, "Dude, he literally told us not to trust people like you." *shrug*

For real! (Based on how over the top all the other colonial sets are this season.)

That was indeed a bit of a misstep. That line Lord John gives about hope really falls flat when you consider it from the POV of the Native Americans who used to live in the area of River Run and the enslaved people who now work there. They've been better about countering lines like that in other episodes this season, but this one went unchallenged out of plot necessity I guess.

Why are there no comments yet? Well I liked it. It's a shame the beginning of this season was so...off. They've really hit their stride again now. I wish all those early episodes didn't feel so much like they were just set up and maneuvering. But at least it got us here. This was the first time I've ever really liked Lord John or the actor who played him. I'm not usually a fan, even in the books.

Yeah, I've always thought Ron did more to muck up the show than he helped anything. I think the bigger issue is changes in the writers' room. Yeah, language acquisition research shows that children pick up accents from their peers, not their parents. I see it all the time at work.

No, it's just that they're the younger generation and we've known them since they (the characters) were kids. It's also new, so I'm sure I'll get used to it.

Maybe he's making use of it as a secret name, like Jamie used Alexander Malcolm. Was I the only one squicked out by seeing "the kids" naked? Obviously they're grown ups, but it felt so weird. I have no problem with the scenes with Jamie and Claire, but for some reason I didn't want to see Roger and Bree like that. So awkward. Good episode overall. Leaves you with a stone in the pit of your stomach though. I almost with I hadn't watched this week, and waited until the next episode is out so I could just go straight into that.

That's so true. Why could't they have her walking toward Lallybroch and fall, and get stuck at Laoghaire's before she got there. We know they're close to each other. "cabin down by the creek, overlooking the mountains, near where the Indian's ghost hangs out." - I cackled at that! Ha!

After a day to think about it, I've decided that (while I don't like Frank) the Frank scenes were good and valuable information for the story. The Loaghaire and Joanie scenes however a) went on far too long, b) didn't entirely make sense, and c) took away from what everyone really wanted to see, which was Bree at Lallybroch. Nell and the girl who plays Joanie are lovely actors, but this was not right for the story. They're saying in the media that they wanted to show the parallel between Frank and Loaghaire, but a) there really isn't one since those relationships were not equal, and b)...who cares? It would have been just as moving (and just as artful writing) to show a contrast between Bree's life in Boston falling apart as Frank and Claire break up and then Bree finding a new family in the past when she arrives at Lallybroch and meets everyone. I know we couldn't get Jenny, but they couldn't get anyone other than Steven Cree? There are some of the cousins we haven't even seen as adults (I think), they could have hired anyone and told me they were Maggie and I'd have believed them.

No, the print shop reunion of Jamie and Claire last season.

I remember an interview last season where they said they changed the reunion scenes because they wanted something less melodramatic. So yeah.

Oh, no! Frank. He was somewhat tolerable, but I had been hoping we were done with him due to contracts and such. Yes, why, why is Lizzie a giant? Her father still treats her like a pre-teen? But? So many questions? I always skim the bits in the book with Roger on his boat, so I have no idea if those are accurate, and I can't remember how it ties into the guy who's a MacKenzie that Roger ends up with later. I...I didn't entirely hate the changes they made to Brianna's time in Scotland. I guess there were scheduling conflicts with some other actors? Also, I bet the way it really was in the book was deemed too melodramatic for the TV show. I guess we just have to live with knowing that they're going to be faithful to the books in all the inconsequential scenes, but any "big" moment they're going to switch around and put their own touch on it. *long-suffering sigh* Maybe it's all because they didn't make the pearls the way they were supposed to be. [crying from laughing emoji] It wasn't terrible to watch, in the moment, but looking back on it, it feels a bit like how The Garrison Commander episode always feels to me—a very beautiful waste of screentime. Everyone seemed to love that episode, but for me it took what was a short bit in the book and stretched it out needlessly, seemingly just to showcase Menzies, and I guess how pretty the writing staff can write. This was similar. It was a nice showcase of acting, and pretty little scenes, but in the end, what purpose did it serve? We spend 3/4ths of the episode enjoying the pretty cottage and playing in the garden, and then we only have a tiny bit of time left for getting to Lallybroch, meeting Ian, getting to the docks, meeting Lizzie...maybe we could have allocated our time a bit better? *shrug* I didn't hate it, but I do kind of hate that Ian is the only person Brianna got to meet. You couldn't even scrounge up any of her cousins? Just the two "lads" who carted her trunk around? Who were they? Any relation? And also, can I just say, Claire must have had a TON of clothes back in the day. There were enough that Marsali took a trunk of them with her when she sneaked onto the voyage last season, and now there's yet another trunk for Bree to take? Wow Claire. Did I love it? No. Did I hate it? No. Given all the things in the episode that I'm never fond of seeing (namely Frank and Laoghaire) it could have been a lot worse.

There's already so much discussion of all the sexual assaults (and attempts) in Outlander. I feel like non-book readers are going to riot and jump ship when (if?) Bree shows up in the past and more or less immediately gets raped. I wonder if there's a way they can maintain the basic structure of the story without actually going there.

Oh ho ho. Look who finally admitted they screwed up the wedding ring. Ha. I feel vindicated after all this time. Maybe now they'll learn to never listen to changes that Ron wants to make. (I don't mind changes, but throughout every season, when there's been a dumb or annoying change, it has always come out later that Ron wanted it. Once there was a even a thing that was the best scene in an episode and later I heard Ron say he had wanted to cut it but people overruled him.) I don't have much else to say. Fine episode. William was weird and awkward and annoying, but that's William. A funny thing while I was watching...they shot that deer, and then Jamie was going to show William how to cut it up or whatever, and I just knew that it was going to be gross and they were going to show it because this is Outlander and they like to show guts and stuff. So I cover my eyes so I can't see. When I think it's safe I peek out, and of course that was right as the guts first spill out. Gahhh. Oh, and speaking of gross. I was kind of grossed out when Jamie laid Claire on the bed, because a) she was wet and that was going to mess up their linens, and then I realized b) did she change the sheets after sweaty and sick Lord John was in them? Ick. I'm going to fanwank that in their gorgeously appointed, not very rustic cabin, they have a cedar chest full of bed linens and she has the other ones ready to get laundered.

You guys, the Outlander writers twitter account did a Q & A earlier today and one of the questions I saw they answered was about how much time had passed between this episode and the previous one. I can't remember exactly now, and I think they deleted it, but it was either 2 or 4 months! By the time I saw it, there were a few people already commenting about how could they have built the cabin and furnished it that nicely in 4 months (I'm pretty sure it was four months), heh, so maybe they had to delete it before causing too much trouble. My eyes practically bugged out of my head when I saw it. ETA: I was poking around more and saw other people responding to their answer to another question about how Claire had such nice veggies for the animals (their answer: she grew them in her garden) and they were saying, In a month? In a months and a half? So maybe that was the original answer to the time question, but anyway, my point is...the writers seem to have a vastly different experience with the passage of time than we do here in reality.